Python 52.4%
TeX 47.6%
1% Auto-generated (revision: clustered SEs)2\begin{table}[htbp]3 \centering4 \begin{threeparttable}5 \caption{Hedonic Regression Results (Text + Vision Features)}6 \label{tab:regression}7 \begin{tabular}{@{}lcc@{}}8 \toprule9 & (1) Model~A & (2) Model~B \\10 & \textit{rich} & \textit{broad} \\11 \midrule12 $\ln(\text{Living area})$ & 0.358$^{***}$ & \\13 & (0.012) & \\[3pt]14 $\ln(\text{Lot area})$ & 0.027$^{***}$ & 0.040$^{***}$ \\15 & (0.006) & (0.005) \\[3pt]16 Bedrooms & 0.014$^{***}$ & 0.032$^{***}$ \\17 & (0.005) & (0.003) \\[3pt]18 Bathrooms & 0.073$^{***}$ & 0.113$^{***}$ \\19 & (0.007) & (0.007) \\[3pt]20 Parking & 0.011$^{***}$ & 0.015$^{***}$ \\21 & (0.001) & (0.002) \\[3pt]22 Age & $-$0.004$^{***}$ & $-$0.005$^{***}$ \\23 & (0.001) & (0.001) \\[3pt]24 \multicolumn{3}{@{}l}{\textit{Amenities \& text (LLM)}} \\[2pt]25 Central A/C & 0.053$^{***}$ & 0.020 \\26 & (0.018) & (0.018) \\[3pt]27 Public transit & 0.090$^{**}$ & 0.058 \\28 & (0.046) & (0.039) \\[3pt]29 Waterfront & 0.058$^{*}$ & 0.062$^{***}$ \\30 & (0.033) & (0.019) \\[3pt]31 Condition (LLM, ord.) & 0.016$^{***}$ & 0.016$^{***}$ \\32 & (0.006) & (0.005) \\[3pt]33 Reno.\ kitchen (LLM) & 0.026$^{***}$ & 0.027$^{***}$ \\34 & (0.007) & (0.010) \\[3pt]35 Hardwood floor (LLM) & 0.024$^{**}$ & 0.030$^{***}$ \\36 & (0.009) & (0.011) \\[3pt]37 New construction (LLM) & $-$0.000 & $-$0.016 \\38 & (0.013) & (0.014) \\[3pt]39 Income property (LLM) & $-$0.019$^{**}$ & $-$0.013$^{*}$ \\40 & (0.009) & (0.008) \\[3pt]41 \multicolumn{3}{@{}l}{\textit{Vision (façade)}} \\[2pt]42 Curb appeal (1--10) & 0.023$^{***}$ & 0.016 \\43 & (0.009) & (0.013) \\[3pt]44 Renovation level (ord.) & 0.024$^{**}$ & 0.020$^{**}$ \\45 & (0.010) & (0.009) \\[3pt]46 Luxury (visual) & 0.051$^{***}$ & 0.062$^{***}$ \\47 & (0.012) & (0.009) \\[3pt]48 Garage visible & 0.046$^{***}$ & 0.047$^{***}$ \\49 & (0.006) & (0.007) \\[3pt]50 Brick façade & 0.033$^{***}$ & 0.044$^{***}$ \\51 & (0.009) & (0.011) \\[3pt]52 Stone façade & 0.036$^{***}$ & 0.047$^{***}$ \\53 & (0.008) & (0.005) \\[3pt]54 Vinyl façade & $-$0.045$^{***}$ & $-$0.062$^{***}$ \\55 & (0.015) & (0.012) \\[3pt]56 Rural setting & $-$0.122$^{***}$ & $-$0.076$^{***}$ \\57 & (0.032) & (0.029) \\[3pt]58 \midrule59 City FE / Type FE & Yes & Yes \\60 Living area & Yes & No \\61 Observations & 9{,}446 & 19{,}123 \\62 $R^2$ & 0.755 & 0.725 \\63 Adjusted $R^2$ & 0.748 & 0.721 \\64 \bottomrule65 \end{tabular}66 \begin{tablenotes}[flushleft]67 \footnotesize68 \item \textit{Notes:} OLS estimates of Equation~\eqref{eq:hedonic} with the full69 feature set. Model~A includes $\ln(\text{Living area})$ (measured-area subsample);70 Model~B omits it (full sample). ``LLM'' variables are extracted from the71 description text; ``Vision'' variables from the façade photograph. Curb appeal and72 renovation level enter as scores; luxury, garage, and material/setting are73 indicators. All specifications include city and property-type fixed effects and the74 full amenity, room-detail, and listing-signal controls (only selected coefficients75 shown). Standard errors clustered by municipality (195 clusters) in parentheses.76 Heteroskedasticity-robust (HC3) standard errors are uniformly smaller and yield77 the same significance pattern for the text- and vision-derived attributes, except78 that curb appeal in Model~B is significant under HC3 but not under clustering.79 $^{***}$, $^{**}$, $^{*}$: significance at 1\%, 5\%, 10\%.80 \end{tablenotes}81 \end{threeparttable}82\end{table}83